Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA25499 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:26:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [18.104.22.168] User-Agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.0.3 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 21:19:39 +0000 Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says... From: Steve Drew <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Message-ID: <B8AD89EA.2C0firstname.lastname@example.org> In-Reply-To: <200203061159.LAA22574@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2002 21:21:40.0113 (UTC) FILETIME=[12484810:01C1C61E] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:28:16 +1100
> From: Jeremy Bradley <email@example.com>
> Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence
> At 12:31 PM 5/03/02 -0000, you wrote:
> I don't want to stir up the Aussies on the list, but there seems to be two
>> diametrically opposite views about aboriginals in Oz, either the traditional
>> colonial one of disdain and control (evidenced by Prince Phillip's spear
>> throwing comments the other day- oh we Brits are so proud...), or a
>> guilt-ridden over-celebration and over-estimation of their culture and
>> capabilities (a bit like those pro-native americans who refuse to accept
>> that the Anasazi might have been ritualistic cannibals as the archeology
>> strongly suggests).
> Egotistical, barbaric colonists came here to Australia a mere 214 years
> ago. They disobeyed their King, International Law and their instructions
> from the Colonial Office; not to mention their Church.
> In that short span of time they and their 'civilised' descendants caused so
> much damage socially and environmentally that it is a tragedy of
> inconceivable proportions. I have had the opportunity to live with several
> 'tribal' groups and I have no hesitation in assuring you that these are
> civilised people in any sense of the word. It is a part of the process of
> inter racial conflict to denigrate those whom you would dispossess. It is a
> shame that to speak up on their behalf is to invite such as yourself to
> indulge in name-calling, but you are not the first and you won't be the last.
> Yes, at times (and under special circumstances), some of the Australian
> peoples also participated in what may today be thought of as 'uncivilised'
> practices, but they never plundered or massacred like their invaders and
> they did live sustainably. If we can learn to do likewise, I will be
> impressed by that too.
I have a little sympathy with your point of view, though my knowledge comes
only from books and documentaries, and not much of them either. From what i
understand, they did not really catch on to the idea of armed resistance
that other cultures did, such as the North Americans and the South African
etc, indigenous populations.
I did note that IIRC (now i know what it means!), that New Scientist did an
article about how the first evidence of cave art can be found in Australia,
and that it also depicts a boat. I can't check this as i don't subscribe to
NS, and i can't check my files at the moment as i don't have acopy of
Appleworks to decode my files. Sorry.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:37:05 GMT